Bind a Claim to Current Evidence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false and do not establish a read-only safety profile, yet the description only says 'Determine whether' and does not disclose whether the tool also binds/writes claims or modifies session state. The title suggests a binding side effect, but the description does not clarify it, leaving an important behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and packs the key qualifiers—claim classes, freshness, success, typed evidence, and verified ledger—into a compact statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema and full parameter documentation exist, the description omits when to choose this tool, what side effects may occur, and what prerequisites or authorization are needed. For a tool that may not be read-only, this is a substantial completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context by mapping 'fresh successful typed evidence' to the evidence-age and evidence-type parameters, but it does not need to repeat the schema's parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action, 'Determine whether', and a distinct resource: completion, working, integrity, or deployment claims checked against fresh evidence in the verified session ledger. It does not explicitly contrast siblings, and the title's 'Bind' wording slightly conflicts with the description's 'Determine', but the core purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like verify_release or record_outcome. Conditions, prerequisites, and exclusions are absent; usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.